Protein Array Identification of Substrates of the Epstein-Barr Virus Protein Kinase BGLF4

A conserved family of herpesvirus protein kinases plays a crucial role in herpesvirus DNA replication and virion production. However, despite the fact that these kinases are potential therapeutic targets, no systematic studies have been performed to identify their substrates. We generated an Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) protein array to evaluate the targets of the EBV protein kinase BGLF4. Multiple proteins involved in EBV lytic DNA replication and virion assembly were identified as previously unrecognized substrates for BGLF4, illustrating the broad role played by this protein kinase. Approximately half of the BGLF4 targets were also in vitro substrates for the cellular kinase CDK1/cyclin B. Unexpectedly, EBNA1 was identified as a substrate and binding partner of BGLF4. EBNA1 is essential for replication and maintenance of the episomal EBV genome during latency. BGLF4 did not prevent EBNA1 binding to sites in the EBV latency origin of replication, oriP. Rather, we found that BGLF4 was recruited by EBNA1 to oriP in cells transfected with an oriP vector and BGLF4 and in lytically induced EBV-positive Akata cells. In cells transfected with an oriP vector, the presence of BGLF4 led to more rapid loss of the episomal DNA, and this was dependent on BGLF4 kinase activity. Similarly, expression of doxycycline-inducible BGLF4 in Akata cells led to a reduction in episomal EBV genomes. We propose that BGLF4 contributes to effective EBV lytic cycle progression, not only through phosphorylation of EBV lytic DNA replication and virion proteins, but also by interfering with the EBNA1 replication function.Herpesviruses encode two families of serine/threonine protein kinases, one of which, the BGLF4 (Epstein-Barr virus [EBV])/UL97 (human cytomegalovirus)/UL13 (herpes simplex virus)/ORF36 (Kaposi''s sarcoma-associated herpesvirus)/ORF47 (varicella-zoster virus) family, is the sole protein kinase encoded by beta and gamma herpesviruses. The protein kinases phosphorylate both viral and host proteins (16, 21, 42) and are necessary for efficient virus lytic replication. Consequently, these kinases have been of interest as potential targets for antiviral drug development (37), and the compound 1263W94 (maribavir), which inhibits the cytomegalovirus UL97 protein (3), has been used in phase I clinical trials (27, 31, 47).EBV infection is prevalent worldwide, and primary infection in adolescence or early adulthood is associated in 30 to 40% of cases with infectious mononucleosis. EBV efficiently infects B cells in the lymphoid tissues of the Waldeyer ring (43). EBV infection of B cells is biased toward establishment of latency with limited viral-gene expression (49). During latent infection, EBV genomes are maintained as extrachromosomal episomes. Replication of episomal genomes utilizes the latency origin of replication, oriP. The only EBV-encoded protein required is the origin binding protein EBNA1. All other essential replication factors are provided by the cell. Expression of the EBV replicative cycle and production of progeny virus take place in terminally differentiated plasma B cells (11, 29), and epithelial cells may also contribute to the cycle of virus replication and spread that is an important component of both persistent infection of the individual and transmission of virus from one individual to the next (4, 22). Lytic DNA replication initiates at separate origins, oriLyt. EBV encodes a set of six core lytic replication proteins, along with ancillary proteins, such as thymidine kinase (TK), that are involved in nucleotide metabolism (13, 44).Several substrates have been described for the EBV BGLF4 protein kinase, including the core lytic EBV replication protein BMRF1, the polymerase processivity factor (8, 17). BGLF4 has also been found to locate to sites of lytic viral replication (46), to be required for efficient lytic DNA replication and release of nucleocapsids from the nucleus (18), and to contribute to the compaction of cell chromatin seen in cells undergoing lytic replication (32). Protein chip technology provides a new tool for global analysis of activities for biologically important enzymes, such as ubiquitin ligases, DNA repair enzymes, and kinases (7, 19, 36, 38, 52). Using an EBV protein array for unbiased screening, we identified multiple new BGLF4 substrates involved in lytic DNA replication, capsid assembly, and DNA packaging. Unexpectedly, we also identified EBNA1 as a substrate and binding partner for BGLF4. The data suggest that the contribution of BGLF4 to the EBV lytic cycle extends beyond the previously recognized contributions to lytic DNA replication and virion production and includes facilitating the switch from latent to lytic DNA replication by downregulating the EBNA1 replication function.     

A New Borrelia Species Defined by Multilocus Sequence Analysis of Housekeeping Genes

Analysis of Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes, using a novel multilocus sequence analysis scheme, revealed that OspA serotype 4 strains (a rodent-associated ecotype) of Borrelia garinii were sufficiently genetically distinct from bird-associated B. garinii strains to deserve species status. We suggest that OspA serotype 4 strains be raised to species status and named Borrelia bavariensis sp. nov. The rooted phylogenetic trees provide novel insights into the evolutionary history of LB spirochetes.Multilocus sequence typing (MLST) and multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) have been shown to be powerful and pragmatic molecular methods for typing large numbers of microbial strains for population genetics studies, delineation of species, and assignment of strains to defined bacterial species (4, 13, 27, 40, 44). To date, MLST/MLSA schemes have been applied only to a few vector-borne microbial populations (1, 6, 30, 37, 40, 41, 47).Lyme borreliosis (LB) spirochetes comprise a diverse group of zoonotic bacteria which are transmitted among vertebrate hosts by ixodid (hard) ticks. The most common agents of human LB are Borrelia burgdorferi (sensu stricto), Borrelia afzelii, Borrelia garinii, Borrelia lusitaniae, and Borrelia spielmanii (7, 8, 12, 35). To date, 15 species have been named within the group of LB spirochetes (6, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41). While several of these LB species have been delineated using whole DNA-DNA hybridization (3, 20, 33), most ecological or epidemiological studies have been using single loci (5, 9-11, 29, 34, 36, 38, 42, 51, 53). Although some of these loci have been convenient for species assignment of strains or to address particular epidemiological questions, they may be unsuitable to resolve evolutionary relationships among LB species, because it is not possible to define any outgroup. For example, both the 5S-23S intergenic spacer (5S-23S IGS) and the gene encoding the outer surface protein A (ospA) are present only in LB spirochete genomes (36, 43). The advantage of using appropriate housekeeping genes of LB group spirochetes is that phylogenetic trees can be rooted with sequences of relapsing fever spirochetes. This renders the data amenable to detailed evolutionary studies of LB spirochetes.LB group spirochetes differ remarkably in their patterns and levels of host association, which are likely to affect their population structures (22, 24, 46, 48). Of the three main Eurasian Borrelia species, B. afzelii is adapted to rodents, whereas B. valaisiana and most strains of B. garinii are maintained by birds (12, 15, 16, 23, 26, 45). However, B. garinii OspA serotype 4 strains in Europe have been shown to be transmitted by rodents (17, 18) and, therefore, constitute a distinct ecotype within B. garinii. These strains have also been associated with high pathogenicity in humans, and their finer-scale geographical distribution seems highly focal (10, 34, 52, 53).In this study, we analyzed the intra- and interspecific phylogenetic relationships of B. burgdorferi, B. afzelii, B. garinii, B. valaisiana, B. lusitaniae, B. bissettii, and B. spielmanii by means of a novel MLSA scheme based on chromosomal housekeeping genes (30, 48).     

Widely Conserved Recombination Patterns among Single-Stranded DNA Viruses

The combinatorial nature of genetic recombination can potentially provide organisms with immediate access to many more positions in sequence space than can be reached by mutation alone. Recombination features particularly prominently in the evolution of a diverse range of viruses. Despite rapid progress having been made in the characterization of discrete recombination events for many species, little is currently known about either gross patterns of recombination across related virus families or the underlying processes that determine genome-wide recombination breakpoint distributions observable in nature. It has been hypothesized that the networks of coevolved molecular interactions that define the epistatic architectures of virus genomes might be damaged by recombination and therefore that selection strongly influences observable recombination patterns. For recombinants to thrive in nature, it is probably important that the portions of their genomes that they have inherited from different parents work well together. Here we describe a comparative analysis of recombination breakpoint distributions within the genomes of diverse single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) virus families. We show that whereas nonrandom breakpoint distributions in ssDNA virus genomes are partially attributable to mechanistic aspects of the recombination process, there is also a significant tendency for recombination breakpoints to fall either outside or on the peripheries of genes. In particular, we found significantly fewer recombination breakpoints within structural protein genes than within other gene types. Collectively, these results imply that natural selection acting against viruses expressing recombinant proteins is a major determinant of nonrandom recombination breakpoint distributions observable in most ssDNA virus families.Genetic recombination is a ubiquitous biological process that is both central to DNA repair pathways (10, 57) and an important evolutionary mechanism. By generating novel combinations of preexisting nucleotide polymorphisms, recombination can potentially accelerate evolution by increasing the population-wide genetic diversity upon which adaptive selection relies. Recombination can paradoxically also prevent the progressive accumulation of harmful mutations within individual genomes (18, 35, 53). Whereas its ability to defend high-fitness genomes from mutational decay possibly underlies the evolutionary value of sexuality in higher organisms, in many microbial species where pseudosexual genetic exchange is permissible among even highly divergent genomes, recombination can enable access to evolutionary innovations that would otherwise be inaccessible by mutation alone.Such interspecies recombination is fairly common in many virus families (8, 17, 27, 44, 82). It is becoming clear, however, that as with mutation events, most recombination events between distantly related genomes are maladaptive (5, 13, 38, 50, 63, 80). As genetic distances between parental genomes increase, so too does the probability of fitness defects in their recombinant offspring (16, 51). The viability of recombinants is apparently largely dependent on how severely recombination disrupts coevolved intragenome interaction networks (16, 32, 51). These networks include interacting nucleotide sequences that form secondary structures, sequence-specific protein-DNA interactions, interprotein interactions, and amino acid-amino acid interactions within protein three-dimensional folds.One virus family where such interaction networks appear to have a large impact on patterns of natural interspecies recombination are the single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) geminiviruses. As with other ssDNA viruses, recombination is very common among the species of this family (62, 84). Partially conserved recombination hot and cold spots have been detected in different genera (39, 81) and are apparently caused by both differential mechanistic predispositions of genome regions to recombination and natural selection disfavoring the survival of recombinants with disrupted intragenome interaction networks (38, 51).Genome organization and rolling circle replication (RCR)—the mechanism by which geminiviruses and many other ssDNA viruses replicate (9, 67, 79; see reference 24 for a review)—seem to have a large influence on basal recombination rates in different parts of geminivirus genomes (20, 33, 39, 61, 81). To initiate RCR, virion-strand ssDNA molecules are converted by host-mediated pathways into double-stranded “replicative-form” (RF) DNAs (34, 67). Initiated by a virus-encoded replication-associated protein (Rep) at a well-defined virion-strand replication origin (v-ori), new virion strands are synthesized on the complementary strand of RF DNAs (28, 73, 74) by host DNA polymerases. Virion-strand replication is concomitant with the displacement of old virion strands, which, once complete, yields covalently closed ssDNA molecules which are either encapsidated or converted into additional RF DNAs. Genome-wide basal recombination rates in ssDNA viruses are probably strongly influenced by the specific characteristics of host DNA polymerases that enable RCR. Interruption of RCR has been implicated directly in geminivirus recombination (40) and is most likely responsible for increased basal recombination rates both within genes transcribed in the opposite direction from that of virion-strand replication (40, 71) and at the v-ori (1, 9, 20, 69, 74).Whereas most ssDNA virus families replicate via either a rolling circle mechanism (the Nanoviridae, Microviridae, and Geminiviridae) (3, 23, 24, 31, 59, 67, 74) or a related rolling hairpin mechanism (the Parvoviridae) (25, 76), among the Circoviridae only the Circovirus genus is known to use RCR (45). Although the Gyrovirus genus (the other member of the Circoviridae) and the anelloviruses (a currently unclassified ssDNA virus group) might also use RCR, it is currently unknown whether they do or not (78). Additionally, some members of the Begomovirus genus of the Geminiviridae either have a second genome component, called DNA-B, or are associated with satellite ssDNA molecules called DNA-1 and DNA-Beta, all of which also replicate by RCR (1, 47, 68).Recombination is known to occur in the parvoviruses (19, 43, 70), microviruses (66), anelloviruses (40, 46), circoviruses (11, 26, 60), nanoviruses (30), geminivirus DNA-B components, and geminivirus satellite molecules (2, 62). Given that most, if not all, of these ssDNA replicons are evolutionarily related to and share many biological features with the geminiviruses (22, 31, 36), it is of interest to determine whether conserved recombination patterns observed in the geminiviruses (61, 81) are evident in these other groups. To date, no comparative analyses have ever been performed with different ssDNA virus families to identify, for example, possible influences of genome organization on recombination breakpoint distributions found in these viruses.Here we compare recombination frequencies and recombination breakpoint distributions in most currently described ssDNA viruses and satellite molecules and identify a number of sequence exchange patterns that are broadly conserved across this entire group.     

Alignment of the c-Type Cytochrome OmcS along Pili of Geobacter sulfurreducens

Immunogold localization revealed that OmcS, a cytochrome that is required for Fe(III) oxide reduction by Geobacter sulfurreducens, was localized along the pili. The apparent spacing between OmcS molecules suggests that OmcS facilitates electron transfer from pili to Fe(III) oxides rather than promoting electron conduction along the length of the pili.There are multiple competing/complementary models for extracellular electron transfer in Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms (8, 18, 20, 44). Which mechanisms prevail in different microorganisms or environmental conditions may greatly influence which microorganisms compete most successfully in sedimentary environments or on the surfaces of electrodes and can impact practical decisions on the best strategies to promote Fe(III) reduction for bioremediation applications (18, 19) or to enhance the power output of microbial fuel cells (18, 21).The three most commonly considered mechanisms for electron transfer to extracellular electron acceptors are (i) direct contact between redox-active proteins on the outer surfaces of the cells and the electron acceptor, (ii) electron transfer via soluble electron shuttling molecules, and (iii) the conduction of electrons along pili or other filamentous structures. Evidence for the first mechanism includes the necessity for direct cell-Fe(III) oxide contact in Geobacter species (34) and the finding that intensively studied Fe(III)- and electrode-reducing microorganisms, such as Geobacter sulfurreducens and Shewanella oneidensis MR-1, display redox-active proteins on their outer cell surfaces that could have access to extracellular electron acceptors (1, 2, 12, 15, 27, 28, 31-33). Deletion of the genes for these proteins often inhibits Fe(III) reduction (1, 4, 7, 15, 17, 28, 40) and electron transfer to electrodes (5, 7, 11, 33). In some instances, these proteins have been purified and shown to have the capacity to reduce Fe(III) and other potential electron acceptors in vitro (10, 13, 29, 38, 42, 43, 48, 49).Evidence for the second mechanism includes the ability of some microorganisms to reduce Fe(III) that they cannot directly contact, which can be associated with the accumulation of soluble substances that can promote electron shuttling (17, 22, 26, 35, 36, 47). In microbial fuel cell studies, an abundance of planktonic cells and/or the loss of current-producing capacity when the medium is replaced is consistent with the presence of an electron shuttle (3, 14, 26). Furthermore, a soluble electron shuttle is the most likely explanation for the electrochemical signatures of some microorganisms growing on an electrode surface (26, 46).Evidence for the third mechanism is more circumstantial (19). Filaments that have conductive properties have been identified in Shewanella (7) and Geobacter (41) species. To date, conductance has been measured only across the diameter of the filaments, not along the length. The evidence that the conductive filaments were involved in extracellular electron transfer in Shewanella was the finding that deletion of the genes for the c-type cytochromes OmcA and MtrC, which are necessary for extracellular electron transfer, resulted in nonconductive filaments, suggesting that the cytochromes were associated with the filaments (7). However, subsequent studies specifically designed to localize these cytochromes revealed that, although the cytochromes were extracellular, they were attached to the cells or in the exopolymeric matrix and not aligned along the pili (24, 25, 30, 40, 43). Subsequent reviews of electron transfer to Fe(III) in Shewanella oneidensis (44, 45) appear to have dropped the nanowire concept and focused on the first and second mechanisms.Geobacter sulfurreducens has a number of c-type cytochromes (15, 28) and multicopper proteins (12, 27) that have been demonstrated or proposed to be on the outer cell surface and are essential for extracellular electron transfer. Immunolocalization and proteolysis studies demonstrated that the cytochrome OmcB, which is essential for optimal Fe(III) reduction (15) and highly expressed during growth on electrodes (33), is embedded in the outer membrane (39), whereas the multicopper protein OmpB, which is also required for Fe(III) oxide reduction (27), is exposed on the outer cell surface (39).OmcS is one of the most abundant cytochromes that can readily be sheared from the outer surfaces of G. sulfurreducens cells (28). It is essential for the reduction of Fe(III) oxide (28) and for electron transfer to electrodes under some conditions (11). Therefore, the localization of this important protein was further investigated.     

Cultivation of Fastidious Bacteria by Viability Staining and Micromanipulation in a Soil Substrate Membrane System

Soil substrate membrane systems allow for microcultivation of fastidious soil bacteria as mixed microbial communities. We isolated established microcolonies from these membranes by using fluorescence viability staining and micromanipulation. This approach facilitated the recovery of diverse, novel isolates, including the recalcitrant bacterium Leifsonia xyli, a plant pathogen that has never been isolated outside the host.The majority of bacterial species have never been recovered in the laboratory (1, 14, 19, 24). In the last decade, novel cultivation approaches have successfully been used to recover “unculturables” from a diverse range of divisions (23, 25, 29). Most strategies have targeted marine environments (4, 23, 25, 32), but soil offers the potential for the investigation of vast numbers of undescribed species (20, 29). Rapid advances have been made toward culturing soil bacteria by reformulating and diluting traditional media, extending incubation times, and using alternative gelling agents (8, 21, 29).The soil substrate membrane system (SSMS) is a diffusion chamber approach that uses extracts from the soil of interest as the growth substrate, thereby mimicking the environment under investigation (12). The SSMS enriches for slow-growing oligophiles, a proportion of which are subsequently capable of growing on complex media (23, 25, 27, 30, 32). However, the SSMS results in mixed microbial communities, with the consequent difficulty in isolation of individual microcolonies for further characterization (10).Micromanipulation has been widely used for the isolation of specific cell morphotypes for downstream applications in molecular diagnostics or proteomics (5, 15). This simple technology offers the opportunity to select established microcolonies of a specific morphotype from the SSMS when combined with fluorescence visualization (3, 11). Here, we have combined the SSMS, fluorescence viability staining, and advanced micromanipulation for targeted isolation of viable, microcolony-forming soil bacteria.